> I vote for going with OMG.
I second it. The reason for the original unfortunate wording was that I
had not time to reread the OMG specs:)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Thackrah [mailto:andrew@opengroup.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 9:04 AM
> To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
> Cc: www-qa@w3.org
> Subject: Re: use case definition
>
>
> On 2002.08.14 16:29 Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
> > I propose the following definition for use case. I've also included
> > some additional possibilities. It may make sense to use some of this
> > (#2-4) in the Notes below the checkpoint. #5 is a definition for
User
> > Scenario
>
> > However, here is some Background or alternative definition
> >
> > 2. A use case defines a goal-oriented set of interactions between
> > external actors and the system (specification) under consideration.
> > (Actors are parties outside the system that interact with the system
> > (UML 1999, pp2.113-22.123)
> > An actor may be a class of users, roles users can play or other
systems.
>
>
> > 5. USER SCENARIO - an instance of a use case, representing a single
> > path through the use case. Thus, there may be a scenario for the
main
> > flow through the use case and another scenarios for each possible
> > variation of flow through the use case (e.g., representing each
option).
>
>
> In UML (1.4) , they talk of UseCases and UseCaseInstances.
>
> They define a UseCaseInstance as (pp2-138):
>
> " A use case instance is the performance of a sequence of
actions
> specified in
> the use case.
>
> [In the metamodel UseCaseInstance is a subclass of Instance.]
> Each method performed by a UseCaseInstance is performed as an
> atomic
> transaction; that is, it is not iterrupted by any other
> UseCaseInstance.
>
> An explicitly described UseCaseInstance is called a scenario"
>
> So the OMG regard a scenario as being a description of an instance
of a
> use case.
> This is the opposite sense to our current definition in specGL #1.
> "A Use Case is a description of the user scenario"
>
> So I think we have to decide whether to go with OMG terminology or
use
> our own.
> I vote for going with OMG.
>
> -Andrew